Rating: 
Summary: Worthy
Review: I find the concept of forbidden knowledge a profound one. Mr. Shattucks has raised some important questions, especially in relation to science and scientific resonsibility.However, I wish the "forbidden knowledge" question had been extended to the realm of psychology. That would have been thought provoking as well, especially in our hyper analyzed, over examined and obsessive age. On the whole,I found the book dry and tedious, and I finished it with difficulty.
Rating:
Summary: Forbidden knowledge or forbidden literature.
Review: I had a hard time with this book. As some of the previous reviewers have noted, Shattuck seems to have a problem with where he wants to go with this book. It would have been great if he stuck to how some things should not be known by man. However Roger gets mucked up and first describes man's yearning for the unknown, then talks about his liberal viewpoints on nuclear weapons, and then talks about sex and violence. This book went all over the place, and I wonder what he was trying to prove.There must be better books on this topic but I just don't know where. This was not a great read, but the subject is important.
Rating:
Summary: Forbidden knowledge or forbidden literature.
Review: I had a hard time with this book. As some of the previous reviewers have noted, Shattuck seems to have a problem with where he wants to go with this book. It would have been great if he stuck to how some things should not be known by man. However Roger gets mucked up and first describes man's yearning for the unknown, then talks about his liberal viewpoints on nuclear weapons, and then talks about sex and violence. This book went all over the place, and I wonder what he was trying to prove. There must be better books on this topic but I just don't know where. This was not a great read, but the subject is important.
Rating: 
Summary: A rare book that makes one question the unquestionable.
Review: I was intrigued by the title of Shattucks book, the issue of biological engineering bieng in the news at the time, and the ethical questions it brings up being on my mind. What I liked most about it is that it is one of those rare books that make you (or at least made ME) change your mind about what was previously an unquestionable belief: in this case, that censorship is always bad. Two points made by the book stand out in my mind. One is that censorship never blocked creativity but if anything has, throughout history, called forth greater creativity. (The example comes to mind of Rushdie's description of a love scene in the highly censored Indian cinema where men and women can't even touch: the woman sensuously kisses a mango and takes a bite of it, passing it on to her lover. He does the same, with great intensity. The scene is long and extremely sensuous. In our uncensored cinema the two would already be in bed, but the filmmaker would have lost an occasion to put his creative talents to work. Amnother example is that Brecht was able to put on "Threepenny Opera" despite Nazi censorship, kicking the Nazis in the ***'s without them even realizing it. Even the Czech writers and artists that were persecuted by the government have said that then, at least, you knew who was a real artist and who was just in it for the money.) The book, of course, is not in favor of persecution! The point is that even in the most repressive of governments, censorship can't be said to BLOCK the artist. The book also made me reconsider pornography. I had always just gone along with the general opinion of our era that all censorship is bad. But because of this attitude, explicit images of sex, violence, violent sex etc are not hard to find. Once, I remember boys getting a big thrill out of the chaste manniquins in store windows when they were being dressed. Now, it would take alot more than that I think to excite even the youngest pubertal boy. One might at least wonder if this banalization of sex, this over-exposure that we have had in the past decades, has not raised out thresholds for sexual excitement. What once would have been extremely exciting seems like nothing. Could this not be a contributing factor, (along with the prime culprit, in my opinion: the violence in the family and other sources of social distress) to the diffusion of the extreme of violent pornography, where women and children are raped and killed on screen, because some people are so deadened within themselves, and so saturated with images of sex that they can only be stimulated with such horrors? I highly recommend the book, and it is well worth going through the lengthy sections of literary criticism, though it is also a book that can be read in patches, skipping what might not be of partiucular interest to the reader.
Rating: 
Summary: When will we learn our lessons from His-tory?
Review: If I had the option, I would choose 0 stars, and here's why: While I appreciate the scholarship apparent in this work, I question the value of using literary criticism of Euro-centric works to do what amounts basically to reinforcing the Euro-centric ethic of using secrecy as the currency for perpetrating Euro-centric oppression. In the wake of the Cold War, arguably the most obsessively secrecy-oriented period of Western His-tory, when we faced daily the threat of nuclear annihilation by powers using those secrets to maintain their power, we have the opportunity to re-vision our society to allow ALL its members to truly participate in its visioning and re-formation. But if we continue to perpetrate the myth that some secrets must be kept - regardless of the degree of scholarship we use to make the argument - we will only be successful in maintaining a status quo where the select few continue to hold 95 percent of the power.
Rating: 
Summary: a dull book with clever marketing
Review: If you are thinking about buying this book, please understand that this is a long philosophical inquiry into whether we should seek limits to what we know or learn. It is not a catalog of information that was surpressed. It is very learned and mostly uses literary examples to explore this dilemma. It does not examine any of the information on what we currently believe to be limitations on what is knowable (i.e. quantum theory, uncertainty and incompleteness), nor does it go into a broad range of subjects on what information is dangerous to have. It reads like a very well written piece of literary criticism, and I suspect that most people who buy this book will not finish it, nor enjoy it. I was mislead by the title in a book club publication and wish I hadn't purchased it.
Rating:
Summary: Forbidden Knowledge - Shattuck's lesson
Review: Just one year ago, I was sitting in Prof. Shattuck's class at Boston University listening as he read from a manuscript he was in the midst of writing. The class was called "Forbidden Knowledge," and the manuscript became, well, I suppose that's obvious. By the time the book was published, I had graduated. I eagerly absorbed the text, and was amazed at how clearly I heard Prof. Shattuck's voice in the prose. It was like sitting in on his discussions once again. And, like his classroom debates, Shattuck comes across not as a man who has all the answers, but as a man who questions. I can't help but notice the irony in what I am doing. I am writing a review on the internet about limits of knowledge - when it seems that information is unbound in cyberspce. But, I think this book makes it clear that information readily available is not the same as knowledge. Knowledge requires responsiblity. Roger Shattuck is a responsible and wise guide through centuries of literature and scientific breakthrough. He explores the work of questioners, all the while mindful of the fragile boundries between knowledge and hubris.
Rating:
Summary: Forbidden Knowledge - Shattuck's lesson
Review: Just one year ago, I was sitting in Prof. Shattuck's class at Boston University listening as he read from a manuscript he was in the midst of writing. The class was called "Forbidden Knowledge," and the manuscript became, well, I suppose that's obvious. By the time the book was published, I had graduated. I eagerly absorbed the text, and was amazed at how clearly I heard Prof. Shattuck's voice in the prose. It was like sitting in on his discussions once again. And, like his classroom debates, Shattuck comes across not as a man who has all the answers, but as a man who questions. I can't help but notice the irony in what I am doing. I am writing a review on the internet about limits of knowledge - when it seems that information is unbound in cyberspce. But, I think this book makes it clear that information readily available is not the same as knowledge. Knowledge requires responsiblity. Roger Shattuck is a responsible and wise guide through centuries of literature and scientific breakthrough. He explores the work of questioners, all the while mindful of the fragile boundries between knowledge and hubris.
Rating:
Summary: The Dead White European Males Were Right
Review: Just what IS 'forbidden knowledge'? Roger Shattuck answers brilliantly in this absorbing book: the knowledge of ourselves. And how come we're not supposed to know? As Shattuck traces our views of God, Man, and Nature through literature, you'll find yourself saying "why didn't I think of that?" My book club discussed this work, and we were up til two in the morning arguing about it. Most enjoyable! I rated Forbidden Knowledge a "10" not because it is without flaws, but because it is the only book of its kind I've ever read. It's been months since my last reading, but I still think about it, still ponder Shattuck's assertions, still wonder why I "didn't think of that." Warning Label: you need to be versed in Milton's Paradise Lost, Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, and a host of other Famous Literary Works to get the full benefit of Shattuck's arguments. You can certainly enjoy the reading without an English Major background, and it might inspire you to take a look at some of the old standards by Dead White European (fe)Males. I bought the book in hardback, then wrote ALL over it, but I couldn't help it. You read it, you'll find yourself vandalizing the pages, too.
Rating:
Summary: Forbidden Knowledge: Says Who?
Review: Roger Shattuck in FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE raises on a scholarly level that which previously had been raised mostly by white-smocked monster-creating mad doctors who were warned about venturing into areas where Man Must Not Go. Shattuck explores the full range of human knowledge as he postulates what sorts of knowledge are inherently forbidden. Most of his attention focuses, however, in areas of his expertise:literature. He considers the negative ramifications of Eve's eyes being opened to evil in the Garden of Eden; of Satan's questing for knowledge reserved only for His boss; of Faust's seeking knowledge that he transmutes into power; and of the Marquis de Sade's questing for the limits of pain and pleasure. As Shattuck progresses from one consideration to another, he makes clear his belief that humanity is fatally flawed in the moral/ethical department. According to Shattuck, whenever humanity pursues an area of knowledge that has the potential for evil, humanity, following Murphy's Law, will turn potentiality into reality. Literature, he notes, is replete with examples of men and women who could not resist a bite from the Apple of Knowledge. There is no way to prove him wrong, of course, and it is a most depressing thought that he might be right. If one does not look too closely at the proofs that Shattuck offers, then a complete reading of his book sounds superficially reasonable. Yet, I dare to ask questions that go unasked in FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE. Is the knowledge that man should question the limits of knowledge itself forbidden? How can one measure the surety of the potential dangers of delving into potentially harmful knowledge?
And if one can measure these dangers, how can one measure or balance the corresponding benefits? And finally, the kicker: exactly who will be the one to affirm that this knowledge is forbidden while that one is not? These questions almost certainly have no definite answer that will satisfy the reasonable mind, suggesting that the quest for answers to fuzzy questions ought not to stop that reasonable mind from posing them in the first place.
|
